The information presented herein resulted from a 1997 trial
conducted at Prairie View A&M University by Dr. Lou Nuti to
make an early and, admittedly, exploratory evaluation of the
recently introduced Boer goat as a terminal sire on dairy,
Spanish and Tennessee Meat Goats (TMG). Although the small
numbers and variable ages and sizes of animals available for
purchase at that time made the data ineligible for publication
in refereed journals, we feel current goat producers might
glean useful information from the findings, particularly in
light of present industry interest in “finishing” Boer
crossbreds. Too, a number of dairy goat owners are now using
Boer sires to try to improve carcass merit of surplus kids
sold for meat.

Research Procedure

The 50 wethers used in this trial were purchased from area
goat producers and transported to Prairie View in late June,
1997. They were held for seven days of pre-trial observation
and pre-conditioning (de-worming, confinement handling and
exposure to new pelleted feed). The trial began June 30 with 5
breed groups: TMG, Boer x Spanish, Boer x Nubian/TMG, Boer x
Nubian/Alpine and Boer x Nubian. Each breed group was penned
separately and fed as groups. Therefore, it was impossible to
obtain individual feed intakes and, accordingly, no individual
feed conversion efficiencies. Only individual daily rates of
gain could be determined. Initially, there were ten animals
per breed group, but, early on, one TMG and two Boer x Spanish
wethers died (no reason found). Group feed intakes in those
pens were then adjusted to compensate for the smaller numbers.

The sole diet fed was a commercial, pelleted ‘complete feed’
with a tag guarantee of 16% crude protein, 1.5% fat (min.),
19% crude fiber, .8-.9% calcium, .32% Phosphorus, 1.0-1.25%
salt, 10ppm-20ppmcopper plus vitamins A (15,000I.U./lb) and E
(3000I.U./lb). It also had Decoquinate (Decox), 27.2
grams/ton, to suppress coccidiosis. The tag indicated a
composition of grains, protein feeds, molasses, and 20%
roughage products (unidentified). This figure, taken with the
19% fiber guarantee, suggests the total digestible nutrient (TDN)
content of this feed mixture was about 72%, as-fed basis. (For
comparison, corn is 80%, oats are 70% and good alfalfa hay is
about 52% TDN.) In any case, the feed composition and expected
feed intake were conducive to rapid growth rate when fed ad
lib (all they wanted, all the time).

At the conclusion of the 120 day trial, all animals were
weighed, then held off feed for 24 hours and thereafter
weighed again just prior to slaughter. They were stunned,
jugular-cut and hung for bleeding, skinning and removal of
viscera. Head, shanks, liver, heart and kidneys- with- fat
were removed prior to washing and weighing the hot carcass.
After chilling for 24 hours at 34F, the carcasses were weighed
and fabricated into selected retail cuts which were weighed to
calculate yields.

Results and Discussion

We have tabulated the performance and carcass data under
breed-group headings and in three separate tables for reader
convenience.

Readers should first remember that
there were, essentially three different age and weight groups
in the trial. These differences make precise comparisons of
performance data impossible. However, the figures do reflect
certain principles of animal growth with which producers
should be acquainted. For example, pre-weaning growth rates
are relatively low but become ever larger as the kid ages.
After weaning, increasing average daily gain (adg) at first
stabilizes around puberty (at .3 to .4 lb) and thereafter
decreases with increasing age, particularly so as the animal
approaches maturity. However, post-weaning kids, if fed ad
lib., will continue to grow at a higher adg for a longer time,
but eventually, their adg rate will slow, even in the face of
higher rates of daily feed intake, because, as they grow and
begin to fatten, their feed conversion efficiency declines
sharply. Remember, it takes 2.25 times more feed (energy) to
put on a pound of fat than it does to put on a pound of
protein (muscle). The economic consequences of this
physiological phenomenon are two: it increases the cost/lb of
gain and, secondly, the selling price/lb of the live goat
usually decreases as it becomes larger and unacceptably fatter
than current markets demand.

Note also in Table 1 that, as expected, larger goats have
higher daily feed intake (dfi) than smaller goats, but, when
dfi is expressed as a percent of body weight, larger goats
cannot eat as much, proportionately, as smaller ones. Right
when the larger goat is fattening and needs ever more
feed/day, it simply cannot eat enough to sustain a high adg.
Essentially, the economic principle of diminishing returns is
mirrored in the diminishing feed conversion efficiency (fce)---one
gets ever less return (gain and income) per unit of feed eaten
and feed dollar spent; sooner or later, the net selling
price/lb will not cover the cost per pound of gain (and
overhead). When the cost of feed and overhead for the next
pound of gain exceeds the selling price of that pound, it is
time to load and go.

At the conclusion of this trial in November of 1997, choice
slaughter goats in the 40 to 80 pound range were selling at
the San Angelo, TX. auction for $.86/lb. Referring to line 10
of Table 1, it is apparent that the feed cost/lb of gain, not
to mention overhead, exceeded the selling price/lb received
except for the Boer x Spanish cross group.

Readers will recognize that, if these wethers had been
purchased at less than the $.86/lb selling price (e.g.
$.70/lb), then a profit on the purchased weight could have
been made ($.86 - $.70 = $.16/lb x pounds of purchase weight).
Growing and fattening (finishing) of weanling or stocker goats
in a typical, intensive feedlot environment is not for faint
hearts or shallow pockets. Assuming adequate disease control
and low death loss, feed-lotting can be done. However, to win,
the trifecta of feed cost, fce and sale price must be
sufficiently advantageous. One is somehow reminded of the
dicey probability of lining up those required three fruits on
a slot machine.

Turning now to carcass information, we again tabulate by breed
groups. Table 2 shows gross carcass characteristics while
Table 3 presents retail cut yields and values. The goats were
slaughtered serially over a period of a few days following the
end of the feeding trial but were again weighed just prior to
slaughter. All chilled carcasses were first divided into fore
and hind halves by cutting transversely between the 12th and
13th rib. Each half was then fabricated into selected retail
cuts and edible scrap, with non-edible scrap/bone being the
difference between cold carcass weight and saleable cuts plus
edible scrap. (See Fig. 1.)

In Table 2, the characteristics measured and the average
values per group found are not very different with the
possible exception of the purebred TMG wethers which had
appreciably higher hot and cold carcass yields (%). We will
report shortly in The Goat Rancher further carcass work with
TMG, Boer and Spanish purebreds.

The size of the ribeye (12th rib) muscle is of economic value
and breeder interest to cattle and sheep producers and
processors. However, goat processors do not seem to exhibit
much concern for ribeye size, most probably because well over
90% of carcasses are sold whole to retailers who, on demand,
cut and sell halves, quarters and, only rarely, smaller
individual cuts. Perhaps as, and if, restaurants and
supermarkets become more interested in larger (40 lb. plus)
carcasses (possibly from ‘finished’ goats), they too may come
to prefer larger ribeyes. Readers should note in Table 2, item
12, that when ribeye measurements of various sizes in a
collection of carcasses are compared on a per/pound of cold
carcass basis, the observed differences all but disappear.
Accordingly, you should understand that many, if not all, of
the observable differences in sizes of ribeye from goats (of
various breeds, sizes, condition, etc.) are due to size of
carcass, not to breeding, feeding, etc.; see Fig. 2.

Regarding Table 3, we show the saleable yields of the chosen
cuts from the rear and front halves and also the non edible
waste, sometimes referred to as “cutting loss”. The ratios of
these items (items 15 and 18) have obvious economic
consequence. Readers should especially note that, in this
trial, the weights of liver, heart and kidneys were not taken
nor were they assigned any dollar values in the retail sale
calculation. This decision had the effect of lowering the
retail yields by approximately 1.2 lb./carcass or about 3%
yield (which would be now worth about $3.00).

In earlier times, slaughter plants gained revenue from the
sale of non-edible offal(viscera, bone, blood, hides, etc.),
but, currently, they usually have to pay additional sums for
its removal. Goat hides may draw $1-$2 each, or zero, or be an
offal-removal cost, depending on the operation.

Please refer briefly to Table 2, line 7, to note that the Boer
crossbred’s cold carcass dressing percentages averaged 46.5%
(range 45.3% to 48.1%) while the TMG yielded 53.5%, a 15%
advantage (53.5% divided by 46.5 %). Urban abattoir personnel
tell us that 45-47% cold carcass yields are typical for
commercial goats and that 50-53% is the exception. In Table 3,
lines 15 and 16 show the yield of saleable cuts, by weight and
as a percentage of the cold carcasses. The retail yield for
the Boer crossbreds ranged from 86.5 to 88.9% (ave. 87.8%)
while the TMG average was 92.2%, a further advantage of 5.0%
(92.2% divided by 87.8%) for the TMG (explained in part by its
noticeably lower percentage(7.8) of non-edible scrap, line
18).

The value of retail cuts (line 19) was calculated by
multiplying the weight of individual cuts by the retail price
of that cut and then summing. We report the 1997 Austin, Tx
retail goat meat prices as:

In this price
list, the double cut/bone-in rib chops at $2.69/lb (see Fig.
3) seem to be underpriced relative to the double cut/bone-in
loin chops at $5.49/lb. Think of beef rib eye steaks (chops)
vs. T-bone steaks (chops). The other hind- and forequarter
cuts seem to us comparably priced in terms of edible meat,
but, remember, very little commercial goat meat is yet sold in
urban markets as individual cuts. Thus, current retail pricing
patterns are not readily available for comparing to 1997
values.

The retail value per pound of cuts for the breed groups are
shown on line 20, Table 3. The Boer crossbreds averaged
$2.54/lb and the TMG averaged $2.79/lb, a TMG advantage of
9.8% ($2.79 divided by $2.54). The final carcass measurement,
value of retail cuts per pound of shrunk live weight (line
21), favors the TMG by 20% ($1.24/$1.03 crossbred average).
This higher crucial value for the TMG is due to a combination
of factors: higher cold carcass yield (53.5%, line 7, Table
2), lower cutting loss (7.8%, line 18, Table #3) and higher
average value per pound of retail cuts ($2.79/lb, line 20,
Table 3).

Unfortunately, we
had too few animals in each breed group and, secondly, there
was too much individual difference within each breed group; we
cannot, therefore, say that the TMG advantage was
statistically significant. But, this data and other findings
soon to be reported do suggest a rationale for doing further
work with larger numbers of genetically representative TMG.
Anecdotal experiences with Boer x TMG crosses (50%TMG x
50%Boer and 75% Boer x 25% TMG) by the authors and others seem
quite promising; perhaps a “classic cross,” 5/8 Boer x 3/8 TMG,
would be commercially useful. But, readers should note in
Tables 1, 2 and 3 that the Boer x TMG/Nubian crossbreds were
neither better nor worse than the other non-TMG x Boer crosses
in either performance or carcass data. Much caution is urged
regarding small-number breed comparisons. Too, superior
carcasses, even if statistically real, may not necessarily
come from animals of superior productive and/or reproductive
performance; proceed with skepticism as your constant
companion.

One last, but very instructive observation...line 22 in Table
3 shows the auction price per head a processor would have had
to pay for the shrunk goat. Subtracting these figures from the
retail values per carcass (line 19) gives the gross margins
the processor/wholesaler and the retailer would have had to
share to cover all their expenses and profits (line 23). These
breed margins ranged from $20.98 to $12.77 and averaged
$17.48/hd. The processor/wholesaler would have engendered
procurement/shipping, hauling shrinkage, slaughter and carcass
shrinkage costs and, of course, a profit. Thereafter, the
retailer would have had expenses for transporting the carcass,
possibly fabricating it into cuts and merchandising them, plus
his mark up (i.e., profit).

The precise costs and exact profits from processing,
distribution and retailing goat meat are proprietary and,
accordingly, are not likely to be deeply researched by those
desiring further life expectancies. Certain costs, however,
may be estimated with some accuracy and, by comparing retail
prices for hanging carcasses in, say, New York City, to known
live goat prices in San Angelo, one can confidently speculate
that processors and retailers each profit, perhaps
$3-$7/carcass, on the average, across annual ever changing
supply and demand pattern; after all, who can gainsay?

Conclusion:

None of the performance
measurements were significantly different between the TMGand the various crossbred wethers.

The feed efficiencies and feed
costs per lb of gain recorded herein demonstrate the
economic uncertainties associated with finishing goats in
intensive environments.

Although there were measurable
differences in carcass characteristics between the TMG and
Boer crossbreds, too few goat numbers and too much variation
within breed groups made the results inconclusive, but
certainly worthy of further investigations.

The gross margins between the
aggregate retail sales values of the carcass components and
the auction costs of the “finished” slaughter goats aresufficiently narrow to give pause to those
contemplating options such as retained ownership, slaughter
operations, value-added merchandising, etc. Extreme care
should be exercised by those only partially informed of the
perils and (presumed) profits from marketing goats beyond
the farmgate.